New York passes pied-a-terre tax
cnbc.com
New York passes pied-a-terre tax
1–10 of 459 posts
Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax
#2“It always seems impossible until it's done."
Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax
#3Probably the least complicated tax law. Increase taxes to increase revenue. Makes sense. Align valuations with reality while maintaining relatively constant absolute tax dollar amounts. Also makes sense. It's really not that hard.
Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax
#4On unoccupied or secondary residences specifically, not on wealth overall. This is more of a housing policy?
Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax
#5$ have to come from somewhere, with the Fed cutting taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor every other term, time for the states to take over.
Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax
#6On unoccupied or secondary residences specifically, not on wealth overall. This is more of a housing policy?
[deleted]
Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax
#7I think this is in the right direction, but the cut off at $1M is interesting.
Why's there an obsession with the $1m cutoff?
The dollar has been turned to dust. $1M is not that much money, especially in housing, especially in NYC.
Why tax $1m second homes and not second homes generally? Effectively, you're going to tax almost all second homes.
So why the arbitrary cutoff?
Chicago wanted to add a "millionaire's tax" on $1m+ home sales. At least in Chicago, that isn't effectively taxing the vast majority of housing (and total value) - so there's some distinction worth having.
Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax
#8I think this is in the right direction, but the cut off at $1M is interesting. Why's there an obsession with the $1m cutoff? The dollar has been turned to dust. $1M is not that much money, especially in housing, especially in NYC. Why tax $1m second homes and not second homes generally? Effectively, you're going to tax almost all second homes. So why the arbitrary cutoff? Chicago wanted to add a "millionaire's tax" o…
It's symbolic for it's demographic voters
Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax
#9On unoccupied or secondary residences specifically, not on wealth overall. This is more of a housing policy?
Real estate cannot move. If you are wealthy enough to own a second home worth at least $1M or more, you are likely very wealthy (top 2% of US households by net worth threshold is ~$5.5 million). It is a wealth tax implemented on a real estate asset component of a high net worth human's total portfolio.
Re: New York passes pied-a-terre tax
#10I think this is in the right direction, but the cut off at $1M is interesting. Why's there an obsession with the $1m cutoff? The dollar has been turned to dust. $1M is not that much money, especially in housing, especially in NYC. Why tax $1m second homes and not second homes generally? Effectively, you're going to tax almost all second homes. So why the arbitrary cutoff? Chicago wanted to add a "millionaire's tax" o…
Below 1M in NYC it becomes unclear why you have a second home. Maybe you're not quite "wealthy" and it's really helping your family out in some way. No reason to complicate things, the cutoff actually simplifies it while sacrificing almost nothing in terms of what the tax is trying to accomplish.